Nicolas Goaziou n.goaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
Yes, you can indeed - except for the [-] which is hardcoded. Try the
following:
#LATEX_HEADER: \setbox0=\hbox{\large$\square$}
#+BIND: org-export-latex-list-parameters (:cbon
Hello,
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
Yes, you can indeed - except for the [-] which is hardcoded. Try the
following:
#LATEX_HEADER: \setbox0=\hbox{\large$\square$}
#+BIND: org-export-latex-list-parameters (:cbon
[{\\parbox[][][c]{\\wd0}{\\large$\\boxtimes$}}] :cboff
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
I don't think so - not yet in any case. I didn't even know about the
box stuff until Skip brought it up. I would
Nicolas Goaziou n.goaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
I don't think so - not yet in any case. I didn't even know
Then, what about setting :cbtrans to \\texttt{[-]} and
`org-export-latex-list-parameters' to nil, instead of $\\boxminus$ and
'(:cbon $\\boxtimes$ :cboff $\\Box$), respectively?
I'm fine with that - Skip? Tom? Others? If this does end up being the case,
then Skip's \parbox method can be
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
Nicolas Goaziou n.goaz...@gmail.com wrote:
Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com writes:
Btw, is there any consensus on better default values for :cbon, :cboff
and :cbtrans? Configurability isn't an excuse for ugly standards.
I don't think so -
Skip Collins skip.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
Then, what about setting :cbtrans to \\texttt{[-]} and
`org-export-latex-list-parameters' to nil, instead of $\\boxminus$ and
'(:cbon $\\boxtimes$ :cboff $\\Box$), respectively?
I'm fine with that - Skip? Tom? Others? If this does end up
There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
- [ ] a
- [X] b
- [-] c
is translated to the LaTeX
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Box$ a
\item $\boxtimes$ b
\item $\boxminus$ c
\end{itemize}
The first problem is that \Box is not the same size as \boxtimes or \boxminus .
Skip Collins skip.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
- [ ] a
- [X] b
- [-] c
is translated to the LaTeX
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Box$ a
\item $\boxtimes$ b
\item $\boxminus$ c
\end{itemize}
The first problem is
Skip Collins skip.coll...@gmail.com writes:
There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
- [ ] a
- [X] b
- [-] c
is translated to the LaTeX
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Box$ a
\item $\boxtimes$ b
\item $\boxminus$ c
\end{itemize}
The first problem is that
Thomas S. Dye t...@tsdye.com wrote:
Skip Collins skip.coll...@gmail.com writes:
There is a couple of problems with the way checkboxes are typeset in LaTeX.
- [ ] a
- [X] b
- [-] c
is translated to the LaTeX
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Box$ a
\item $\boxtimes$ b
\item
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com wrote:
I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE,
but otherwise it looks good to me.
Can we compromise on \Large ? :-)
,
| \item [{\parbox[][][c]{\wd0}{\LARGE$\square$}}] a
`
I tried
Skip Collins skip.coll...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Nick Dokos nicholas.do...@hp.com wrote:
I like it! Well, almost all of it: I'd vote for \large, rather than \LARGE,
but otherwise it looks good to me.
Can we compromise on \Large ? :-)
As Tom Dye pointed out,
13 matches
Mail list logo
